Volume 1, Issue 6
Welcome back! It’s been a busy few weeks, but I’m recommitting to delivering you a newsletter a week, albeit a little shorter - which is probably better for everyone involved! This week on the RTP, I’d like to revisit a classic tool of change management and explore its connection to... death.
THE KUBLER-ROSS CHANGE CURVE
There’s a good chance you’ve heard of the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Mapped out, it looks like this:
The particular shape of that curve may also be familiar to you if you’re involved in the world of change management or if, perhaps, you’ve been involved in organizational change and someone has shown you a similar-looking curve to explain what you and/or the organization might be going through. That’s right - these curves are one and the same. And though the labels on the “change” version are slightly different, the shape of the curve and its basic use are the same.
The Explanation
Let’s start with a little background on how this curve came to be.
In 1969, Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, a Swiss-American psychologist and researcher, published a best-selling book called On Death and Dying. In this book, she drew on her research with terminally ill patients to outline the now well-known five stages of grief. Kubler-Ross’s initial work prompted other researchers to explore the model in contexts outside of death, dying, and grief, and in 1976, three British researchers published a book entitled Transition: Understanding and Managing Personal Change, in which they demonstrated that the experience of change evoked a similar profile to the grief curve. In the ensuing decades, other researchers exploring emotional responses to personal change noted similar results. However, it wasn’t until 1998 that the change curve as we know it was developed by David Schneider and Charles Goldwasser. It looks like this:
The Overview
Let’s dive a bit deeper into the elements of the change curve:
Shock and Denial: When change comes upon us unexpectedly, in any situation, these are typical reactions. Denial is in effect a protective mechanism your mind uses to shield you from the sense of overwhelm and loss of control that can come with change. The slight “bump” in the curve between shock and denial reflects the energy that we often expend in trying to find a way out of the change that we’ve been confronted with.
“The Valley of Despair” - Frustration and Depression: When we’re dealing with change that is either objectively or subjectively unpleasant to us, this trench is often where we land. When our efforts at denial ultimately fall flat, anger, blame, and frustration can quickly follow, but as our feelings of powerlessness in the situation in crease, we can often quickly plummet into the lowest point of energy, morale, and mood.
Experimentation and Decision Making: Just as in Kubler-Ross’s original model, even through the lowest point of the curve we eventually come to a place of acceptance. At this point, we see more clearly and realize that the change is indeed happening or going to happen - but, that we can see a way forward. At this point, our thoughts begin to turn toward the future, our mind jumps into problem-solving mode, and our energy levels climb as we begin to envision ourselves in the post-change reality. We begin to experiment with new ways of thinking, being, and working and make the decision to engage with change.
领英推荐
Integration: Finally, we reach a point of equilibrium where we have accepted and integrated the change as part of our regular existence.
The Synthesis
Here are a few key points to keep in mind about the change curve:
First, it’s important to note that these stages are not necessarily linear. Everyone experiences change differently, and we certainly cannot expect people to progress in lockstep from one stage to the next during periods of organizational change. In fact, it’s often the case that people will skip entire stages, swing back and forth between stages, or move through the stages so fast that they’re hardly aware they’ve done so. The usefulness of the curve as a change management tool is in helping both those driving change and those impacted by change to identify where they currently find themselves on the curve and then coming up with strategies and actions to move forward.
Second, individual variations in the change curve can come from many sources. There are many factors, even beyond the change itself, that can lead to a multitude of individual reactions leading to different landing points on the change curve. These can include an individual’s perception of how deeply they are impacted by the change, whether or not they feel they have a say in how the change plays out, and the degree to which other changes, either personal or work-related, are creating a sense of change saturation. Individual differences in emotional intelligence and perceived self-efficacy can play a role too.
Lastly, the change curve reminds us of the importance of supporting individuals through change. In most major organizational change situations, there are new processes or ways of working to learn and old routines and habits to leave behind. The necessity of acquiring new knowledge, combined with the often volatile feelings associated with the low point on the change curve, often equate to a temporary dip in both morale and performance. When leaders encounter this situation, they must be mindful to respond not with frustration, threats, or intimidation, but with engagement, support, and transparent communication. Preparing for these temporary ebbs and coming up with plan to support people through the change will ultimately mean more successful change and faster adoption and utilization.
The Nutshell
The applicability of Kubler-Ross’s original grief curve to so many other change situations, including those we face at work (when we’re hopefully not confronting death!) shows that the emotional experience of change has some universality. The change curve has stood the test of time as a useful tool for us to evaluate and track the emotional journey of change both for ourselves and in the organizational context. and it remains a valuable tool for anyone leading or experiencing organizational change.
Further Reading